i thin a top 8 is too big for a comp of 14 teams. top 6 all the way for me, even if the comp did get bigger in numbers.

why not have a top 14 playoff.

It's all abitary. Made just for what ever seams to market the game the best.

It's not about a true test of a team but keeping up the interest.

Also it's not comparable to any American style playoff system as that is a true playoff system where the conferences don't give a true measure of the best team and have cross divisional games and stronger and weaker conferances. The playoffs then take the winners and runners up from the conferances and allow the top teams to compete.

It was primarly a distance measure as a full league fixture would be impossible to maitain in the usa in the erly 20th century.

It's all abitary. Made just for what ever seams to market the game the best.

It's not about a true test of a team but keeping up the interest.

Also it's not comparable to any American style playoff system as that is a true playoff system where the conferences don't give a true measure of the best team and have cross divisional games and stronger and weaker conferances. The playoffs then take the winners and runners up from the conferances and allow the top teams to compete.

It was primarly a distance measure as a full league fixture would be impossible to maitain in the usa in the erly 20th century.

Does the American system not crown a champion from a single game after a selection of knock out games?

I honestly don't think it is just about marketing. I always found the league system quite boring and I do now in Football. A team can make a bad start and their season is effectively over. Then you have the situation where one team runs away with it. Bradford comfortably won it in 1997 but it was boring and resulted in a lot of nothing games at the end of the season.

No system is perfect, even a league system doesn't necessarily truly define who are the best. It will still come down to individual moments, individual errors and one off games. For instance Wigan topped the league this year but I'm not 100% that they are the best team in the league this year. To be called so they will have to prove it by playing the rest of the teams around them.

Does the American system not crown a champion from a single game after a selection of knock out games?

I honestly don't think it is just about marketing. I always found the league system quite boring and I do now in Football. A team can make a bad start and their season is effectively over. Then you have the situation where one team runs away with it. Bradford comfortably won it in 1997 but it was boring and resulted in a lot of nothing games at the end of the season.

No system is perfect, even a league system doesn't necessarily truly define who are the best. It will still come down to individual moments, individual errors and one off games. For instance Wigan topped the league this year but I'm not 100% that they are the best team in the league this year. To be called so they will have to prove it by playing the rest of the teams around them.

Not perfect but much more exciting.

I have no doubts that it's more exciting, that's it's purpose. But it does not give a truer test of a team or a squad, lets say wire get beat next week by huddersfield, I could not argue that because of a one off game they are poorer than Wire.

For the same reason I can't argue that Leeds are as poor as the CC final made them look. They may not be the best team but they were not that poor.

I have no doubts that it's more exciting, that's it's purpose. But it does not give a truer test of a team or a squad, lets say wire get beat next week by huddersfield, I could not argue that because of a one off game they are poorer than Wire.

For the same reason I can't argue that Leeds are as poor as the CC final made them look. They may not be the best team but they were not that poor.

It doesn't necessarily make them worse than Huddersfield because they will have already lost a game to get there. As regards crowning a champion I'd say it's gets it right just as often as a League structure does.

My point is that the League system is not as perfect as most would have you believe when it comes to determining who are the best. A team could potentially win the league but lose every game they play against the team that finishes second by 60 odd points. However the team finishing second could have had a bad start to the year and lost a couple of games to make up for it. Which are the better team? A league system proves that they were consistent for longer but does this make them a better side? I would use the Jenson Button win as an example, he built up a sufficient lead at the beginning of the year when other teams were faltering but by the end of it they had ironed out their problems and he wasn't nearly winning races. Does that make him the best racing driver?

It clearly deserves rewarding and it should be rewarded more than it is now. But I still much prefer the playoffs for deciding who are the best side in the division. Everybody knows the exact moment that they need to peak for and then they have to play and beat the best sides to be crowned champions. It is still open to the odd result but that's why the teams that finished higher get two bites of the cherry.

If Wigan really are the best team in the league then they should be able to beat the sides around them when it matters.

For what it's worth I like the current system. Especially the fact that eight teams are involved, it gives the lesser like mine (Harlequins) something to play for right to the end of the season. Considering there's no longer relegation the eight team playoff system keeps fans and teams interested right the way through. How does the NRL system differ to SL?

You only like hard facts and figures that you can pick. 17k for a Championship decider, this year the Championship decider will get something like 70k at it.

What was the Super League average the last year that the league winners were crowned champions and we still had promotion and relegation.

What is it now?

Also what was the last attendance for the Premiership final between Saints and Wigan?

You find the figures my friend. I only gave you the figures I had to hand.

You seem to want to do the same you have been accusing me of though

You cannot create something and call it a league then turn it into a cup knockout competition. Can you imagine the Premier League doing it. Exactly. Do not throw anything America my way. Any nation that calls a domestic competition the World Series is clearly retarded. Concceptually it is totally wrong. Morally it indefensible.

You talk about a GF yet Wire v Saints attracted 14K, Wigan v Leeds will not be high, Hudds v Cats 6K? the Hull derby will be a full house I presume. So we are down to one rain sodden evening that the RFL spend 12 months selling tickets for whilst other fixtures attract nothing crowds. Heavens above. Maybe we should have more competition, maybe we should have relegation / promotion because I fail to see where SL / the RFL are delivering what they promised on the back of the packet.

The standard in 2010 has been poor. Poorer than in previous seasons. As the salary cap cuts in we get poorer quality imports and despite being promised that franchising meant with no threat of relegation we would see youngster after youngster developed and clubs better off financially. I see neither. Bradford signing Sibbit says it all. Here is a club that needs to rebuild and they have already given up on youth development. Financially prosperous. Wakefield under threat of financial ruin, the future of Harlequins recently in doubt, still chirping about investment at Wrexham, several Championship clubs going under etc etc.

I have no idea how old you are Maximus, by the name a teenager I presume but ASK older Widnes fans whether they preferred Widnes 1987-1990 to Widnes 2010 ? Everything in the past wasn't so bad and everything in the future is not automatically better unless you swallow the guff proliferated by the two SKY clowns.

For what it's worth I like the current system. Especially the fact that eight teams are involved, it gives the lesser like mine (Harlequins) something to play for right to the end of the season. Considering there's no longer relegation the eight team playoff system keeps fans and teams interested right the way through. How does the NRL system differ to SL?

Is it right though?

Fighting relaegation was / is exciting just as fighting for promotion was is. Is it better or worse for the top clubs. If you knew you had to win a fixture then would it not make that fixture better. Top clubs now rest players throw the odd game away because it simply does not matter. Fans are told it does not matter. Can you imagine any other sport saying come a watch our game, the players don't give a toss, they are only trying in the CC, WCC and at the end of the season. You could still have a Premiership competition to = 8 teams.

You find the figures my friend. I only gave you the figures I had to hand.

You seem to want to do the same you have been accusing me of though

You cannot create something and call it a league then turn it into a cup knockout competition. Can you imagine the Premier League doing it. Exactly. Do not throw anything America my way. Any nation that calls a domestic competition the World Series is clearly retarded. Convceptually the concept is totally wrong. Morally it indefensible.

I did a pretty decent job of defending it I think, take the Jenson Button example. He was the best racing driver last year but in the last 10 or so races he only got in the top 3 twice in a race. This was out of 17 races, that's hardly what I'd call a champion driver, yet a League system allows him to be called the best because he started well.

The Premier League is a different kettle of fish and utterly boring anyway, especially when one team runs away with it. Football doesn't suit a Playoffs because of the nature of the game and the likelihood of upsets. Greece won Euro 2004 despite being far from the best side. This wouldn't happen in RL.

QUOTE

You talk about a GF yet Wire v Saints attracted 14K, Wigan v Leeds will not be high, Hudds v Cats 6K? the Hull derby will be a full house I presume. So we are down to one rain sodden evening that the RFL spend 12 months selling tickets for whilst other fixtures attract nothing crowds. Heavens above. Maybe we should have more competition, maybe we should have relegation / promotion because I fail to see where SL / the RFL are delivering what they promised on the back of the packet.

My point is that you cannot look at crowds as a barometer of interest in these situations, especially one-off crowds or one-off periods. The reasons that play off crowds will not be better is because of season ticket holders, that's the main/only reason. The interest is there. However if you look at the seasons 1990-1997 the average attendance of the league was lower than it is now and by 1996 it was around 6,000. This was all under a league system with full promotion and relegation.

Look at the last Premiership final, Wigan vs Saints yet the crowd was only 33,000. 8,000 lower than Widnes and Hull had managed 7 years previous. The whole competition from the quarter finals to the final was only attended by 64,000 people, less than the SL grand final will be. Wigan-Leeds got 6,400, I'm sure it will be a lot more than that tomorrow. The world changes and people don't want as many competitions, look at Football. The Carling Cup is a joke and the FA Cup is nowhere near as prestigious as it once was. So it's safe to say that a Premiership trophy nowadays would be no better. If we'd never switched we'd probably be playing the final at Huddersfield by now.

So in essence not only is the league average higher than it was with a league and P&R, but we will have a playoffs system that this year will be watched by a conservative estimate of 170k, an extra 100,000 fans on the Premiership.

QUOTE

The standard in 2010 has been poor. Poorer than in previous seasons. As the salary cap cuts in we get poorer quality imports and despite being promised that franchising meant with no threat of relegation we would see youngster after youngster developed and clubs better off financially. I see neither. Bradford signing Sibbit says it all. Here is a club that needs to rebuild and they have already given up on youth development. Financially prosperous. Wakefield under threat of financial ruin, the future of Harlequins recently in doubt, still chirping about investment at Wrexham, several Championship clubs going under etc etc.

Everybody always says the standard is poorer. It isn't. The game changes that's all.

I have no idea how old you are Maximus, by the name a teenager I presume but ASK older Widnes fans whether they preferred Widnes 1987-1990 to Widnes 2010 ? Everything in the past wasn't so bad and everything in the future is not automatically better unless you swallow the guff proliferate by the two SKY clowns.

I'm 27, my name isn't actually Maximus and my second name isn't Decimus. I was around for 1987-1990, but that would be a totally unfair comparison anyway. The same as it would be to ask Warrington fans which period was better.

The future and the present is not automatically worse either. The past was great at times but it can't easily be created when the world has changed.

I did a pretty decent job of defending it I think, take the Jenson Button example. He was the best racing driver last year but in the last 10 or so races he only got in the top 3 twice in a race. This was out of 17 races, that's hardly what I'd call a champion driver, yet a League system allows him to be called the best because he started well.

The Premier League is a different kettle of fish and utterly boring anyway, especially when one team runs away with it. Football doesn't suit a Playoffs because of the nature of the game and the likelihood of upsets. Greece won Euro 2004 despite being far from the best side. This wouldn't happen in RL.

My point is that you cannot look at crowds as a barometer of interest in these situations, especially one-off crowds or one-off periods. The reasons that play off crowds will not be better is because of season ticket holders, that's the main/only reason. The interest is there. However if you look at the seasons 1990-1997 the average attendance of the league was lower than it is now and by 1996 it was around 6,000. This was all under a league system with full promotion and relegation.

Look at the last Premiership final, Wigan vs Saints yet the crowd was only 33,000. 8,000 lower than Widnes and Hull had managed 7 years previous. The whole competition from the quarter finals to the final was only attended by 64,000 people, less than the SL grand final will be. Wigan-Leeds got 6,400, I'm sure it will be a lot more than that tomorrow. The world changes and people don't want as many competitions, look at Football. The Carling Cup is a joke and the FA Cup is nowhere near as prestigious as it once was. So it's safe to say that a Premiership trophy nowadays would be no better. If we'd never switched we'd probably be playing the final at Huddersfield by now.

So in essence not only is the league average higher than it was with a league and P&R, but we will have a playoffs system that this year will be watched by a conservative estimate of 170k, an extra 100,000 fans on the Premiership.

Everybody always says the standard is poorer. It isn't. The game changes that's all.

I'm 27, my name isn't actually Maximus and my second name isn't Decimus. I was around for 1987-1990, but that would be a totally unfair comparison anyway. The same as it would be to ask Warrington fans which period was better.

The future and the present is not automatically worse either. The past was great at times but it can't easily be created when the world has changed.

Just to condense this argument.

1997 - last year with the champions decided by the league winners, with P&R and with a Premiership. Total attendance approx 980k.

1995 to 1997 was one of the lowest ebbs in RL with a civil war tearing the game apart

Why was it a low ebb when we had P&R and a league system for people to get excited by? That was my whole point, you can't attribute all the problems down to one thing and then pick and choose examples. You were pointing out how attendances will be so poor for these playoffs, yet for whatever reason they are much much better than they were the last time we had the Premiership.

Anyway I'm fairly sure that the average attendance is higher now than it was in 1990. That certainly wasn't a low ebb for the sport.

1995 to 1997 was one of the lowest ebbs in RL with a civil war tearing the game apart

It was in Australia, the only way it affected us was the touring test side, and the WCC.Otherwise we were domestically untouched, no rival competition/tv deal to fight over.UK stats are valid in this period for comparison, but stats down under need to bear the S/L war in mind.

You talk about a GF yet Wire v Saints attracted 14K, Wigan v Leeds will not be high, Hudds v Cats 6K? the Hull derby will be a full house I presume. So we are down to one rain sodden evening that the RFL spend 12 months selling tickets for whilst other fixtures attract nothing crowds. Heavens above. Maybe we should have more competition, maybe we should have relegation / promotion because I fail to see where SL / the RFL are delivering what they promised on the back of the packet.

The standard in 2010 has been poor. Poorer than in previous seasons. As the salary cap cuts in we get poorer quality imports and despite being promised that franchising meant with no threat of relegation we would see youngster after youngster developed and clubs better off financially.

The Wire v Saints crowd was Saints third highest crowd this year - in a game played in poor conditions where everybody must pay, that was bloody good.

Hull attracted their 2nd highest crowd of the year, again, all pay.

Every single year we hear that the standard has been poor. Why do people bother? I've enjoyed it anyway.

Every single year we hear that the standard has been poor. Why do people bother? I've enjoyed it anyway.

Because the majority of RL fans seem to have a chip on their shoulder or must immediately think of the most negative thing before the most positive. RL fan culture is shocking IMO. It's quite depressing that many never have anything good to say.

Because the majority of RL fans seem to have a chip on their shoulder or must immediately think of the most negative thing before the most positive. RL fan culture is shocking IMO. It's quite depressing that many never have anything good to say.

Never a truer word spoken on these forums

A lot of Yorkshiremen believe that when God created the world, he made it with perfect balance.
He balanced the hot areas with the cold areas. the dry areas with the wet areas.
And, in creating Yorkshire, he created the most glorious place on earth - full of majestic beauty and sporting giants.........and for balance he created....... Lancashire.